Good gun control policy in CA

[marshallnoise]

more drivel?

when did I ever say "ban guns"?

It's clear you do not deal in reality. And aren't actually interested in thinking.

mrsleeve, while I applaud your efforts here, you are casting pearls before swine.

[nando]

no, I'm more than capable of thinking. but you go off on a huge rant about how I said we should just ban guns, when I never said anything of the sort.

I don't always agree with mrsleeve but he's always respectful when debating. you go off on some tirade about banning cancer and other nonsense that I never even mentioned.

but, that's fine. I get it. your solution is to lock up everyone you don't like, or in other words, just do nothing. having monthly mass shootings is OK with you.

I hope you don't have kids, or at least you're responsible enough of a parent that they know better than to play with your guns. I have two small boys, it would be insane to leave loaded guns anywhere they could get to them (and since they're smart, that's pretty much anywhere that's not locked up).

[marshallnoise]

no, I'm more than capable of thinking. but you go off on a huge rant about how I said we should just ban guns, when I never said anything of the sort.

I don't always agree with mrsleeve but he's always respectful when debating. you go off on some tirade about banning cancer and other nonsense that I never even mentioned.

but, that's fine. I get it. your solution is to lock up everyone you don't like, or in other words, just do nothing. having monthly mass shootings is OK with you.

There you go again distorting reality.

Every argument you make centers around tragedy (emotion), you focus on the omission of guns (restricting access/limiting access) and ignore the murderer.

I mentioned banning cancer as a tongue in cheek quip and you are like a moth to a flame. Incapable of focusing. Had I known you got distracted so easily, I would have never made the comment. You don't read well or have conditioned yourself to deny reality at all costs.

Just another retard with a podium (moderator).

[mrsleeve]

Let's be fair I have gone off the deep end once in a while ;)

[nando]

There you go again distorting reality.

Every argument you make centers around tragedy (emotion), you focus on the omission of guns (restricting access/limiting access) and ignore the murderer.

I mentioned banning cancer as a tongue in cheek quip and you are like a moth to a flame. Incapable of focusing. Had I known you got distracted so easily, I would have never made the comment. You don't read well or have conditioned yourself to deny reality at all costs.

Just another retard with a podium (moderator).

at least I haven't stooped to your level of calling names.

my moderator "status" is little more than a tool to ban spammers, and you want to hold that against me because you disagree? whatever.

[nando]

Let's be fair I have gone off the deep end once in a while ;)

sure but I think you could find posts by me where I was heated and said stupid crap too. you can't agree with everyone 100% of the time. but when you start calling people names and calling them out over an imaginary status, there's not even any point in debating. it's a shouting contest.

to me, we need to find a way where we can own and enjoy our firearms and stupid kids can't get them and blow away a bunch of people at school, or crazy people who want to shoot up a theatre. It's not an insolvable problem, it's just difficult and there are a lot of emotions attached to both sides of the argument.

not that I think we will solve this problem on a car forum, but it's just so frustrating every time there's another shooting and nothing ever happens.

also, I get both sides of the argument - my wife is Canadian. you can probably guess what most of her family think about guns. :p

[mrsleeve]

Depends on what part of Canada she is from lol......

[nando]

that's true. there's some pretty remote places in Canada - maybe I'll retire there some day in the middle of nowhere. :p

[Farbin Kaiber]

That they are evil, reanimated zombie items that will come back and kill you?


Sorry, I just watched all episodes of Walking Dead to catch up to season four.

[marshallnoise]

at least I haven't stooped to your level of calling names.

my moderator "status" is little more than a tool to ban spammers, and you want to hold that against me because you disagree? whatever.

Oh come on man, really? You accuse me of wanting to lock up "anyone I don't like" and accuse me of being OK with "monthly school shootings?" Talk about casting dispersions man. Plus characterizing my posts as being drivel when they were building a case for my thoughts is not childish and petty? Painting me as a potentially bad parent isn't exactly classy either, especially when you have no idea if I even have children.

Yeah, I called you a retard, but its not like you are a martyr here. However, truce.

Being a mod is fine and yes, I judged you based on my past experience with mods who do have an ego a little too large. I apologize for that.

That being said, yeah, it is frustrating when shootings occur and nothing seemingly stops them. I can completely agree with your assessment of the situation and the frustration. I get that it drives you to be emotional and you think about your kids and the situation that they could be in one day.

I just don't know what to tell you that would make you feel better about it other than the drum beat I have been beating ever since posting in this thread: Change the culture, change how we address problems, change how we address criminal activity, and assign blame where blame belongs.

[einhander]

You are right, we should ban guns.

Licensing requirements is registration. You did say that people should be licensed to own guns much like operating cars.

Where did I say MY standards and morals would be imposed on anyone? I said a set of standards and morals should be universalized. Mentally ill people are humans, but until your fabulous science can actually heal the mentally ill, they should be removed from society as they are a danger to everyone else and themselves. What is so bad about that? One might make a very good argument that "science/medicine" has done more harm by drugging our kids to the point of removing "humanity" from them to the point where they go out and murder.

Who determines what "responsible" gun ownership looks like without first setting a standard as to what is responsibility is in the first place? I personally see it as responsible to have a gun at the ready at any moment in my home should a need arise. You probably would see it as irresponsible to have a loaded gun anywhere but locked up in a safe. At that point, you might as well not own a gun as it is useless in an emergency. Who is applying a set of standards now?

Again, why do you refuse to acknowledge that people murder people? The tool used is not relevant to the discussion at all. You again refuse to question my murderous intent and instead believe it more important to remove the gun from my hands because...



You continue to treat the symptom, not the cause. Cannot you see that?

I believe the gun control argument is born out of several things: Laziness, emotional appeal and power grab.

When the murderer is addressed (you know, the one who pulls the trigger), excuses are given and the murderer is absolved of their crimes; after all, they are victims of society or aren't being chemically altered enough. Its harder work to reform man's heart than it is to ban objects that the man can use against other men. Laziness.

What about the children? How many more school shootings is it going to take to get guns off the streets? Oh I know! We'll make everyone have to get a license to own one, then when it is used in a crime, we can blame the licensee for not being responsible enough when a murderer uses their gun illegally! That'll stop murders from happening! Yeah!!! No, you shift blame from the murderer to the owner of the weapon, again, fixating on the weapon and it's whereabouts. Emotional appeal.

So what is the real reason for restricting access to guns? Power. Remove/limit access to firearms and you create another dependent class. When the government and criminals have guns, both rule over those who do not.

Call it gibberish, but refusal to deal with the heart of the murderer and the conditioning we foster in our society for creating murderers is madness or pure evil for it neither removes murderers nor protects victims.

More jibberish.

[frankenbeemer]

Verbosity killed the condors.

[einhander]

We need more gun control.

And ultra high taxes on ammunition.

[mrsleeve]

standard liberal argument, by making necessary supplies artificially cost prohibitive to acquire via the tax code = infringement and I think if I am not mistaken there is something in the Constitution about that being a no no.

[marshallnoise]

standard liberal argument, by making necessary supplies artificially cost prohibitive to acquire via the tax code = infringement and I think if I am not mistaken there is something in the Constitution about that being a no no.

We are just being trolled. Do not engage. Unless for sport. :-)

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk